Let me now address myself to the other members of the Board, for I have quite done with "old-fashioned brother," Q. Answer me, whether you subscribed the 36th article, "ex animo ?" Then you intended to approve the deposition of the Remonstrants, and their banishment; the imprisonment of Grotius, and the execution of Barnevelt; and all the persecutions consequent on the proceedings of the Synod of Dort. If you subscribed that article ex animo, you are now bound by solemn engagements to teach and defend it, and of course to inculcate upon our magistrates the "important doctrine," that they are bound, even from the president of the United States to the justice of the peace, each to whet his sword, and employ all their power to extirpate the false worship of Arians, Socinians, and Anabaptists; to destroy and suppress Arminianism, condemned with so much bitterness in our standards; then the peaceful Quakers too, whose consumption, by the combined power of Brownleeism and Hicksism, goes on too slow, will be despatched by a single stroke with the sharp sword of the civil magistrate, brought fully into the views of the synod of Dort.

Or will you admit that you disbelieve the doctrine contained in the 36th arucle, and that you have neither taught nor defended it? I know you will. T'hen you now deciare ex anima that when you professed to subscribe the articles ex animo, you assented to what you did not believe, and promised what you resolved not to perform. This Mr. Van Dyck would not do; and for his lack of pliability was rejected. Now let me ask you seriously, whether this your last pretence to justify your proceedings, namely, the entirety of the standards, is not too futile to require a further answer.

It is clear as the sun, that there must be a discretionary dispensing power, or you run into the greatest absurdities and wickedness. If the rules of the church require the maintenance of the entirety of the standards in the sense which is advocated by the Board, those rules themselves are wrong, inconsistent with the principles of the word of God, and therefore not binding on you as members of the Board, nor can you take refuge under them. You find it necessary, as ministers

of the gospel, to forbear with your parishioners in their igno rance, unbelief, and erroneous opinions; you find it needful, in your intercourse with your fellow-ministers, or sitting in the capacity of a member of classis, particular or general Synod, to exercise forbearance towards your fellow-ministers, for their differences from you in faith and practice. You have deemed it right, no doubt, to wink at the attack publicly made by the editor of the Magazine of the Reformed Dutch Church, on one of our articles of faith. You do not feel the necessity of deposing ministers for not preaching the Heidelberg catechism, or not observing the rules of the church in regard to infant baptism, or for neglecting to teach and defend the 36th article, and enforcing its principles on the civil magistrates in this country. You are fully aware of the necessity of asking the forbearance of your fellow-ministers for your own differences in opinion and practice from theirs. You are not ignorant of the forbearance of God with the unbelief of his servant Moses, and commissioning him, notwithstanding, to lead his people from Egyptian bondage to the land of liberty and promise. You have seen the long suffering of Christ with his unbelieving disciples, and his licensing them to preach the gospel, notwithstanding their "difficulties on several important doctrines," so that they could not have subscribed to what even the Prophets taught. You know the duty of forbearance to be inculcated again and again, by the theological Paul, and that not only as to matters of practice, but as to matters of faith. See Rom. xiv.; and yet, when you act as a Board of Superintendants, all these considerations are of, no momentthe rules of the church must be abused and made the pretext of setting aside the paramount authority of the word of God-then you cannot exercise forbearance towards a worthy, pious, devoted young brother, who differed from you only on a few unessential matters, and on which he is as likely to be adjudged correct as you are, at the great day of account, when you shall stand with him before the righteous tribunal of the omniscient God,-when every prejudice which now blinds the understanding, shall be dissipated-when the rules of the church will no longer be pleaded as an excuse for

setting at nought the word of God-when the spirit of intolerance will no longer be sustained by the multitudes that help to keep each other in countenance here below, and to drown the cry of persecuted innocence-when the sin and folly of attempting to lord it over the consciences of our fellow-men, will be most evident-when every slumbering conscience will be awakened to the awful responsibility of rejecting from the ministry of reconciliation a young man, whom, if you would but have given heed to the scriptures of truth, you must have known would have been licensed by Him who will then be your Judge. Had you but opened your eyes to the light of God's word, you must have seen that Christ licensed his disciples to preach, although they disbelieved what he knew to be true doctrines; and you would not have rejected your student for doubting doctrines which you do not know to be true, and which you believed, not so much on your own conviction, as on the authority of the church: you would have seen that Christ licensed his disciples, notwithstanding their disbelief of what he positively declared to be true; and you would not have cut off your young brother for doubting propositions which, if declared at all, are "not explicitly and evidently revealed;" you would have seen that the disciples had no reason for their unbelief, except their inveterate prejudices and the perverseness of human depravity, while your student had, on his side, not merely the doubts, but the positive opinions of some of the best men in the church of God.

The history of this persecution, and the discussion of the reasons upon which it is attempted to be justified, have now been brought to a close. And while we are constrained to express unfeigned sorrow that such things should be in this protestant church, and in this land of freedom, it may be more useful to trace the origin of the intolerant spirit which has originated the persecution and carried it into effect.

The intolerance existing in the church arises from setting too high a value on doctrinal, compared with practical, knowledge. For the last two hundred years, the great concern has been to detect and root out heterodox opinions, and establish orthodoxy in matters of speculative faith. To effect this

object, it was deemed necessary to draw up creeds and confessions of faith, professedly extracted from the word of God, but clothed in such language as, to all but the denomination that drew them up, conveyed a meaning different from that expressed in the holy Scriptures. By the establishment of a particular sect in any country, through the power of the civil government, unanimity to a great degree was ensured; and by the consciousness of numbers embracing the same opinions, the dominant party became too confident of the correctness of their religious sentiments, and intolerant of the opinions of their opponents. The least deviation from the acknowledged standards, by members of their own church, was dreaded as the precursor of open apostacy to the opposite faith; and thus, unessential, nay, trifling, differences have been magnified into matters of great importance. Almost the only means employed by the church for promoting the interests of Christ's kingdom, have been to maintain, in her congregations, a correct theoretical faith. This secured, and it was believed that every formidable evil was shut out. Hence the great inquiry in regard to the qualifications of a minister has been, is he orthodox in his creed? The great importance attached to theoretical points of doctrine has diverted the exertions of the Christian world from their proper direction. The principles of the Reformation, if they had only been persevered in and carried on, would, before this time, have dislodged Satan from the usurped empire of the world. The gospel would long since have been preached to every creature, instead of the world's remaining to this day, as to the greatest portion of it, in the darkness of Paganism. The benevolent and glorious charities now in their infancy, would have attained to a mature and blessed manhood; and fields of moral enterprise, not yet explored, would now have been occupied and successfully cultivated. How much more noble, how far exalted above her present station in the world, would have been the Church of God at this day, if her professed friends had not directed so much of their energies to unprofitable speculation and controversy!

In coming to a conclusion of my remarks, it may not be amiss to answer a question, which has doubtless occurred to some of my readers; namely: If there are such evils in the Church of my fathers, why do I still maintain my connexion with it? It is scarcely possible, at this day, to point out the least error in theory or practice in the Church, but that person must hear the remark, "Let those who do not like our doctrines and practices, go to some other church, which they love better, for we compel no man to remain with us." This is generally the language of passion; but it is also the language of ignorance. Were it my desire to retire from the Church in which I have been born, baptized, and enjoyed many privileges, it is not permitted me, unless on the previous commission of some crime, which would subject me to, and effect my excommunication. It has been solemnly decided, by the general Synod, in the year 1824, "That it is an established principle in church government, that the relation existing between the church and its members, can be dissolved only by death, dismission, or an act of discipline." The dismission would not be granted me, did I request it on the ground of the evils existing in the church, for I should be immediately brought under a course of discipline for the avowal. This is my first answer. The next is, that it is not my wish to withdraw. There is no church, within my knowledge, which is exempt. from error in doctrine or practice; that is, according to the best of my own judgment. Another answer is, that the evils in my own church may possibly be corrected; and even if they should not, they are not such as to prevent me, with the exercise of Christian forbearance, from deriving more profit to myself and my children by my continuance in the church, than by withdrawing from it. Lastly, If there be a single talent committed to me, by my Master, whom I, although a layman, profess to serve, the prospect of my employing it to some good purpose, is better, by my remaining in the church of my fathers, than by retiring, or betaking myself to another. has it come to this, that as soon as a man discovers something wrong in his church, he is not only at liberty, but in duty bound to forsake it? Then it is also the duty of the patriot,

M

But